Slashdot Mirror
Free Wi-Fi Threatened?
jasonmicron writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting that if certain state officials have their way, cities in the state of Texas will no longer be able to offer free WiFi to their citizens. This could set a dangerous precedent if passed, as broadband providers could start lobbying officials in the other 49 states to ban free WiFi as well. According to the article, Pennsylvania has already fallen victim to such a law but it excluded Philedelphia due to the city's 'existing efforts.'"
if they can provide free wifi, the should just return the freaking money in the form of a tax rebate or banish welfare
On this topic.
There are many telecom/cable people that are either being schooled to attack municipal FTTH/WiFI or have their own greedy interests at heart.
Don't also forget the shareholders of these companies who HATE whats good for the public as in affordable SUPER-HIGHSPEED 100 megabit FTTH or WiFi.
We in the U.S.A. need to organize fight the ANTI-Muni crowd !!!!!!!!!!!!
This is my reply:
RE: Why Your Broadband Sucks
Perhaps Lawrence Lessig should stick to law, rather than demonstrating his ignorance in economics. Lessig starts with "city leaders stepped in where the free market had failed." What free market? The government given monopoly in cable and telephone? Where in the US is there anything approaching a free market in broadband? Does Lessig believe that Taiwan is so far ahead of the US because US businessmen can't compete with their Taiwanese counterparts in broadband? He calls government-supplied telecommunications "free." Most government services cost more than free-market equivalents; the bill just comes in taxes.
There is a problem with all of Lessig's comparisons to other government functions: he never claims that government does them better. Simply doing something is no argument for doing other, similar things. Congress passed the DMCA and the Mickey Mouse... I mean Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act. Does Lessig believe they should therefore pass more similar legislation? These comparisons with other government services either compare apples to oranges, or don't support his case. Street lights and roads are textbook examples of "free rider" problems. The difficulty of charging for street light usage probably outweighs the efficiencies of market provision; but billing for internet access is easy. As for busses and water, studies indicate that, ceteris paribus, markets provide them better, making a counterexample to his point.
Closer comparisons to government broadband are Soviet industry, or the nationalized Jaguar. Real costs are higher than those of competitive services, quality is worse, and innovation stops. Sensible deregulation brings lower prices, higher quality, and more options.
The worst fallacy is the conclusion: "let the markets, both private and public, compete" What public markets? What does "competition" mean when your "competitor" forces every customer to pay them any price, makes rules for you, and taxes your income to fund themselves? This is like the "competition" between a mugger and his victim. What do you think would happen to FedEx if the USPS was "free?" Perhaps not all innovation would stop. Like public schools, public internet access might become so bad that high quality services will serve the rich elites who can afford them, leading to the opposite of his egalitarian goals.
If we want to see the US plunge from 13th on the list down to wherever Cuba is, then by all means, let the government "compete" in the telecommunications industry. If you want to stand up to the "self-serving lobbyists," stand against their government-granted monopolies, not against saving themselves and us from socialized industry.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?